Search This Blog

PEACE, JUSTICE, ORDER

Is it just me or are peace, justice and order three descriptions of the same thing? And are they not the parent and child of the condition called liberty?

That is to say, the condition of complete rights (freedom, power) over everything that you as a person - as a moral agent - own. That logically means that you do not own anything that other persons - other moral agents - own and so have no freedom or power over what others own.

PEACE

Peace and liberty? Peace seems to be about the simple quiet of the non-initiation of violence of any kind. Perhaps the courtesies and forms of politeness and avoidance of conflict are the peaceful part of our social activities.

Liberty might promote peace insofar as living in liberty makes it disadvantageous to do violent things, where today it is often advantageous to be aggressive or cruel, such as when people riot in protest at something or when police clamp down on such protests by shooting or beating the protesters.

The absence of violence or aggression includes lesser aggressions like coercion. Don't coerce people into things. If you intimidate or shame another person into doing something you are an aggressor, and don't be surprised if a free society finds you to be a disturber of the peace!

JUSTICE

Why should liberty create justice? If justice really is people getting what they deserve, then how does liberty cause that, and how does it absence make it less likely or impossible? .

Now injustice takes in mandatory education, paying taxes, going to government prisons, the military, the police, and let's not forget those monopolists and controllers of justice itself, the government court system and its opaqueness and inaccessibility to all but the rich.

ORDER

Since these three terms are interchangeable, it's difficult to say unique things about them all. Order and peace in particular are almost literally the same thing in two words. Orderliness can be seen as everything moving along smoothly, as everybody getting along, and disputes being resolved quickly and efficiently when they arise.

Contrast this with the human response to government regulation, which is either actual chaos (Haiti and pretty much every low-income country in the world) or paralysis (like the UK utilities, trains, and finance sectors).

The chaos in poor countries takes the form of people resolving disputes through violence, including but not limited to assault, rape, murder, theft, even civil wars and genocide... not quite a gleaming endorsement of the Workers' Paradise.

So the condition of liberty gives rise to those three wonderful - if synonymous - things, and they in turn reinforce liberty.

On the next Ecomony Blogtime; Matt arrests the development of Africa to bring you some fascinating words from our sponsors!

Do read the links in the order in which they appear please. Finding the right comments in the third link might be quite interesting. They are all by a user called BestTrousers and start with "RI" meaning R1.

The main argument used by HealthcareEconomist3 is to give a survey of several works, while BestTrousers goes for comparative advantage.

Hopefully you good folks can indulge me by forgiving this post. It is an unfinished mess because I wanted it out there as the anchor for a hyperlink from a Reddit thread.At the momebt everything below is a jumble of notes, but I will be reworking it bit by bit starting today.Hopefully this post will be sorted out and typed in full before the end of April 2017.

~~~

Historical materialism is the idea that history progresses in stages - slavery, then feudalism, then capitalism, then socialism, then communism - driven by changes in the technologies or techniques of production, and that any human civilisation will exemplify this process.

This makes historical materialism an exercise in both historicism and materialism.

Historicism is the idea that studying the past can reveal history's in-built course or narrative, and so show you the future.

Materialism is the idea that ideas ( and institutions) ultimately* don't matter in determining our destinies, and that therefore only material…

The idea that labor exploits capital is equally as plausible, sans assumptions*, as the idea that capital exploits labor. This is only intended as a response to the formal concept, descriptive or normative, of exploitation in Marx's schema from Capital Volume I.

* Assumptions include the power relation whereby capital is just assumed to be above labor hierarchically.

~ ~ Capital exploits labor because...
... Capital earns income from production done by labor that capital didn't perform
& ~ Labor exploits Capital because...
... Labor earns income from capital that labor didn't buy~
Basically in good old formal logic fashion both of those cases above, being factual descriptions, are true at once or are false at once.